La donna che non si deve amare

Mae Clarke is a revelation as a prostitute in the original "Waterloo Bridge". The film was eclipsed by the 1940 remake starring Vivian Leigh and until recently this earlier version was unavailable. This pre-code version holds up beautifully and is better in many ways because of its frankness and because of Mae Clarke's ferocious performance. Kent Douglas plays the 19 year old soldier who falls in love with the prostitute, not realizing her true profession.The movie seems more realistic than the remake because, Douglas looks and acts like a callow 19 year old,and Clarke is very believable as the prostitute who tries to protect her soldier lover from the truth about herself. Neither Clarke nor Douglas became major stars and you can see that they lack the larger than life glamour of Vivian Leigh and Robert Taylor who starred in the remake.However, Clarke and Douglas add a touch of realism which was a hallmark of many of the pre-code movies and which wouldn't be found in American movies in abundance until the 1970's.

Having seen Mae Clarke being carried away by Frankenstein and getting a grapefruit in the face by James Cagney, I had a clear image of her but not of her talent.

I agree with the other reviewers that this is one knock-out performance. At a time when many actors in early talkies were still being very stagey (with stilted manners and playing to the back row), Mae Clarke built a performance that was modern and genuine.

The whole production is good (especially Arthur Edeson's cinematography and James Whale's direction), but Clarke's acting is what I'll always remember.

I never thought I would enjoy this production of "Waterloo Bridge" more than the 1940 remake with Robert Taylor and Vivien Leigh. For one thing, this version is a straight narrative which is more suspenseful than the flashback construction of the remake. Secondly, Kent Douglass has that boyish quality which makes his naiveté much more believable than Robert Taylor's. And finally, the pacing and casting of the supporting actors by James Whale couldn't be beat. Ethel Griffies, as the heartless landlady, Enid Bennett, as Douglass' sympathetic but forceful mother, and Doris Lloyd, Clarke's practical but unfeeling prostitute friend, were all standouts. I had never seen Mae Clarke in such a strong dramatic role, which she handles more beautifully than I ever thought she could, conveying her anguish at loving a man but being ashamed of having become a prostitute. And, of course, there is Bette Davis in a small inconsequential role very early in her career; she was still a pleasure to watch. By all means, see this film! You won't regret it.

Really excellent pre-code film, set in wartime London where an ex-chorus girl/current street walker (played by Mae Clarke) heads over to Waterloo Bridge to try and find herself a soldier on leave, and she meets wealthy, baby-faced, nineteen-year-old raw/green Roy and invites him up to her flat. He immediately falls in love and thinks she's a "good girl", unaware of her real walk of life. She falls for him too, but keeps putting him off, racked with guilt over her secret "career". Meanwhile he keeps pressing on, sneaking in her window, tricking her into meeting his family for a weekend of tennis, tea, and cocktails, asking her to marry him, etc. - he's completely smitten!

Top-notch acting and a good deal of chemistry between the two leads helps make this a really interesting, absorbing film. Their conversations together come across as quite realistic, and the performance given here by Mae Clarke is amazing - extremely well-done and memorable. I also enjoyed seeing a very young Bette Davis who appears here in a very small role as Roy's sister. Only one thing that bothered me about this film is, why oh why, as I have often seen done in period films made during this time, do they have the actresses appearing in modern, early 30s dresses, rather than period costume? Oh well, still a really first-rate film, well worth seeing.

Waterloo Bridge (1931)

An amazing movie. Set in London during World War I, directed by the man who directed the original (and also amazing) Frankenstein, and with photography by the less known but first rate Arthur Edeson (Frankenstein, yes, but also Casablanca, no less). And throw in an astonishing actress, Mae Clarke, and you can see why it doesn't falter. She plays a struggling chorus girl and prostitute with snappy, lively believability. The lead male, Douglass Montgomery, playing a sweet hearted American soldier, is also a surprise face, totally charming, a perfect complement to Clarke. As characters, the young soldier's bright optimism brings out the best in the struggling but good hearted street girl.

The story is fast, and not completely predictable, and has a blow-out of an ending, really nice. Though set in the teens it feels modern (maybe too modern, historically). I never knew that London had a kind of Blitz experience in WWI, just as they would a decade after this film was released, and looking it up I found the Germans used zeppelins over London in the first war much the same was as they did (with planes) in WWII--to demoralize the civilian population. It adds tense excitement to the film throughout, and to the last scenes in particular, even if it isn't completely realistic (for some reason people don't scramble for cover even as the bombs are being dropped, maybe to portray that stiff upper lip thing).

Is this just a silly romance? No, no way, not when the two actors in it are so fresh and convincing, giving sparkling, nuanced performances miles away from the stiffness we associate with early sound films (or with many silent movies). This is a first rate and fast movie and honest, only 79 minutes long, with fully formed soundtrack and solid supporting cast (including a young Betty Davis, who is already confident and familiar as the sister of the leading man). The LeRoy remake of 1940 is a testimony to the strength of the story (and it is also really good). But if you want to see an early gem on its own terms, here it is. Highly recommended.